"Total revenues for telecommunications operators are potentially at risk."

In a speech on Wednesday, the head of the International Telecommunications Union, an agency of the United Nations, explicitly denied that the group is interested in taking over the Internet. But this speech makes clear that the body is quite interested in helping domestic telecommunications operators make boatloads of cash by controlling the flow of content to individual countries.

The ITU is set to host the December 2012 World Conference on International Telecommunications in Dubai (or, the WCIT-12, for short). Here, a new set of International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) is set to be negotiated. These haven't been revised since 1988. In fact, the existing ones have all kinds of references to outdated gear (telexes!). Many news outlets and members of the American government have sounded the alarm that the UN, via the ITU, is going to "take over the Internet," and that the United States should essentially oppose this move.

In remarks Wednesday at ITU headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, Secretary General Hamadoun Touré said the ITU recognizes all of its member states impose various types of restrictions on freedom of speech. The list includes copyright violations, pornography, defamation and political speech, among others.

“Such restrictions are permitted by article 34 of the ITU’s Constitution, which provides that Member States reserve the right to cut off, in accordance with their national law, any private telecommunications which may appear dangerous to the security of the State, or contrary to its laws, to public order or to decency,” he added.

“I do not see how WCIT could set barriers to the free flow of information,” Touré concluded.

Show me the money

But based on Touré’s speech, the ITU seems to confirm what many global Internet policy watchers had long suspected: this really is about money.

“As the industry has pointed out, data volumes are increasing much faster than the infrastructure needed to carry it, and there is currently a risk of an infrastructure investment shortfall. The revised [International Telecommunications Regulations, to be discussed at the December WCIT meeting in Dubai] should therefore help to encourage broadband roll-out and investment. They should emphasize the importance of liberalization and privatization, and should recognize the role of the private sector and market-based solutions. At the same time as data volumes are increasing, unit prices are declining, so total revenues for telecommunications operators are potentially at risk. As a result, some have said that there is a need to address the current disconnect between sources of revenue and sources of costs, and to decide upon the most appropriate way to do so.”

In other words, because revenues (read: profits) are “at risk,” there needs to be a new set of international regulations that will help shore up big telcos.

“The most important battleground in the WCIT is not censorship or security, but interconnection and the flows of funds among carriers attendant upon interconnection agreements,” wrote Milton Mueller, a professor of information studies at Syracuse University, in a blog post earlier this month. “If you want national regulatory authorities to have more collective control over ISPs generally, and American ISPs and Internet services specifically, you should support the WCIT effort.”

Plus ça change…

How would private sector telecommunications firms shore up their profits? One way is to start charging content providers (read: Hulu, Netflix, HBO, RIAA, MPAA, and everyone else who provides Big Content). Sound ridiculous?

Earlier this month, the site WCITLeaks published a contribution by the European Telecommunications Network Operators (read: major European ISPs like KPN, France Telecom, Deutsche Telecom, Telefonica, and many others). It's the document to be discussed at the WCIT Working Group, currently meeting this week in Geneva.

“For this purpose, and to ensure an adequate return on investment in high bandwidth infrastructures, operating agencies shall negotiate commercial agreements to achieve a sustainable system of fair compensation for telecommunications services and, where appropriate, respecting the principle of sending party network pays,” the draft reads (PDF).

To his credit, Touré also said that he would "make a recommendation to the forthcoming session of Council regarding open access to these documents, and in particular future versions of TD 64," a move that would hopefully negate the need for a site like WCITLeaks.

“ISPs really do seem to believe that content companies are ‘dumping’ traffic onto their networks, but the 'source' of all that traffic isn't the content companies: it's the users who have chosen to access those services,” he wrote. “Having popular online services is, of course, the very reason that people pay for Internet access in the first place.”

“ISPs really do seem to believe that content companies are ‘dumping’ traffic onto their networks, but the 'source' of all that traffic isn't the content companies: it's the users who have chosen to access those services,” he wrote. “Having popular online services is, of course, the very reason that people pay for Internet access in the first place.”

What, "popular online services" was the justification for the proliferation of the telephone or telegraph?

“ISPs really do seem to believe that content companies are ‘dumping’ traffic onto their networks, but the 'source' of all that traffic isn't the content companies: it's the users who have chosen to access those services,” he wrote. “Having popular online services is, of course, the very reason that people pay for Internet access in the first place.”

What, "popular online services" was the justification for the proliferation of the telephone or telegraph?

Odd, I don't see any mention of the telephone or telegraph in the quoted text. And the text I do see is quite specific, and it seems reasonable enough. If not for facebook my wife, as an example, would have little use for the web.

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

We desire a global tax to sustain and grow our faux aristocracy in the face of economic uncertainty in the West. We propose to aid the backbone network suppliers and telcos in artificially raising their revenue without innovation or competition by forcing the content creators of the internet to pay for the privilege of making things the peasants want.

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

If ISPs weren't compelled by outside forces (improvements in communications technology, public pressure, internet advancement) to upgrade the networks in order to sustain their monopolies, we'd still be on dial-up and paying the same amount for the privilege as in the 1990s.

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

The alternative is the people (i.e., the governments) build infrastructure, instead. Which do you want: roads, toll roads, or railroads?

In the long term, I think there will be many internets, implemented and supported with every business and political model imaginable. In the countries where life is good, there will be as many internets as there are roads, and they will be impossible to close down on the whim of a lunatic. But there will be other types of country...

Well the good thing is that they are going up against big content, who also spend allot of money buying politicians.

Like the article says, this has been going on for a long time. I can't believe I am saying this, but a part of me is glad the MPAA and big content have politicians in their back pocket. The question is who has more?

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

Well why don't you wait for this "shill" to actually make those claims, before you put words in my mouth.

Point being that content creators weren't the only reason to build a communications network. Plain old human need to communicate was justification enough. Even if we did away with Facebook, or Netflix, there would be that.

Which would justify what, maybe ISDN? Don't exactly need much to send an email or sit on IRC. I don't think that's what's driving broadband and increasing backbone utilization Ostracus, which is what the conversation is about.

And MY point is that "popular online services" IS NOT the only reason people pay for internet access. Is that really that hard to understand? Some of us are old enough to remember when there wasn't an internet, nor "popular online services" and yet, "if you build it, they will come".

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

I think the point of the article is that many of the teleco's are making LOTS of money. They just don't want to spend their profits on upgrading their networks and are hoping that someone will foot the bill for them.

We desire a global tax to sustain and grow our faux aristocracy in the face of economic uncertainty in the West. We propose to aid the backbone network suppliers and telcos in artificially raising their revenue without innovation or competition by forcing the content creators of the internet to pay for the privilege of making things the peasants want.

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

I think the point of the article is that many of the teleco's are making LOTS of money. They just don't want to spend their profits on upgrading their networks and are hoping that someone will foot the bill for them.

Well if there's a lining to this, it's that it's not just the Americans. Kind of ironic in a way because in the usual Ars discussions, it's always pointed out how the grass is always greener in some other countries pasture. e.g Oh you silly Americans and your slower speeds, smaller bandwidth, and higher costs...

The guy you're responding to is a shill who would probably claim that ISP 'innovation' is responsible for broadband internet. In reality, their main 'innovations' are things like low bandwidth caps, throttling, high subscription fees, and much bitching and moaning about services (such as video streaming) that actually use some of the bandwidth that is advertised. The MBAs should be proud.

Well why don't you wait for this "shill" to actually make those claims, before you put words in my mouth.

I may have completely misread the post, but I dont really see what the news here is, other than vague statements about how the UN does not want to take over the internet, and wants to encourage rollout of the internet via private industry, and will not curtail government imposed restrictions on their country's internet infrastructure.

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

This is a false argument in favor of telecos. Telephone and Telegraph lines were nationalized in this country (US) because the telecos wouldn't have bothered to "connect the last mile" if left to their own devices, which would leave many rural areas without phone service. Incidentally, the same lines are now being used for rudimentary internet connections (dial-up) Without those, the people in the rural community would certainly be left in horse-and-buggy era.

between the US been the police force of the world and the internet, and the UN messing with things which are clearly not in there remit.We will soon be looking back on what was the golden age of the internet.

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

This doesn't make sense. In essence your saying power companies should get some taxes from washing machine factories, because they cause so much drain on their network. Now pretend that the power is essentially free and we have a perfect analogy.

There is no logic in this. Everyone who uses the internet (including 'big content') already pays for their access. If you want them to pay more, ask more.

I would like to ponder why in God's name an organization for private enterprises is even a UN agency. I cannot see why anything with the agenda of profit is even represented by the UN.

And if there's a lack of sufficient infrastructure for the growing traffic, maybe the telcos should spend some of those billions of profit on more/better infrastructure!

Also screw this guy for recommending "more privatization," all that's happened in Denmark as a result of "privatizing" the infrastructure is that one fat toad(TDC) has sat its big, warty backside on top of it, not invested in upgrading it in any sort of timely fashion, and used its weight to block competing infrastructure networks from popping up(our power companies tried to establish a competing fiber-optic network and that turned into nothing after TDC bought up said network and basically did nothing with it).

Nationalize the infrastructure and privatize the services, only way to operate when you're dealing with these monopolies.

You know, there's a legitimate point here. If telecos don't make money, telecos ain't gonna build infrastructure to make more money. I could be on board with *some* language which protects private teleco's.

Somehow that's not what this sounds like, though. It sounds like some telecos spent some of their profits to buy some international negotiators.

This doesn't make sense. In essence your saying power companies should get some taxes from washing machine factories, because they cause so much drain on their network. Now pretend that the power is essentially free and we have a perfect analogy.

There is no logic in this. Everyone who uses the internet (including 'big content') already pays for their access. If you want them to pay more, ask more.

Well said. However, you forgot to mention that any extra money the telcos brought in because of said "tax" would in no way ever speculate about the merest possibility of coming near infrastructure investment as it would be piped straight to the bottom line.